Swift &Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1391 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

SWIFT & COMPANY 1391
Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
14-RC-3865. January 19, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas W. Seeler, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
'9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates a meat processing plant at National City,
Illinois. The Petitioner, which currently represents the Employer's
production and maintenance employees, seeks an election in a separate
unit comprising a residual group of approximately 58 alleged plant
clerical employees, including standards checkers, standards office
clerks, plant departmental clerks and scalers, quality control clerks,
lab technicians, time-study personnel, and garage clerks.' The Em-
ployer contends that the requested unit is inappropriate, on the
grounds (a) that it comprises professional, technical, managerial, and
confidential employees or supervisors; (b) that it includes persons
who are not employees of the Employer; and (c) that it is an inappro-
priate grouping of employees with dissimilar interests. These con-
tentions will be considered below seriatim.
(a) Alleged professional employees, technical employees, super-
visors, and managerial or confidential employees: The Employer con-
tends that the time-study engineers and laboratory technicians are
technical employees. The time-study engineers determine the effi-
ciency of work groups and make time studies, on the basis of which
they determine pay standards for the production and maintenance
employees. They acquaint themselves with departmental operations
I The parties agree that these categories comprise all of the Employer's unrepresented
employees , except those who fall within the statutory exclusions or are managerial, pro-
fessional , office clerical , or confidential employees.
129 NLRB No. 171.
1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and give consideration to such elements as heat or coldness, physical
-effort, fatigue, methods and equipment used, and special timing allow-
ances. Their findings have a direct bearing on the control of the
Employer's production costs. They are required to have 2 to 3 years
of college education or 4 to 5 years of on-the-job experience. Under
these circumstances, we find that the time-study engineers are tech-
nical, rather than professional, employees' The laboratory tech-
nicians have no chemical degree or advanced academic training, and
their work is routine, performed according to prescribed procedures
requiring little or no independent judgment. We find that they are
not technical or professional employees.'
The parties agree, and we find, that the head and assistant head of
the standards department, the head and assistant head of the zone
laboratory, the standard checker foreman, John Kurowski, and the
mechanical dispatcher in the mechanical department should be ex-
'eluded as supervisors. They disagree as to the individuals discussed
below, all of whom the Employer would exclude as supervisors. The
assistant standards checker foreman spends half of his time in check-
ing the work of the standards checkers and the remainder, in assisting
the standards checker foreman, an admitted supervisor, in instructing
new employees. He recommends discipline, and in the regular ab-
sences of the standards checker foreman for approximately 10 percent
,of the time, he assumes all of the latter's responsibilities. Under these
circumstances, we exclude him as a supervisor .4 The head comptomet(w
,operator spends 45 percent of her time in operating a comptometer,
and the balance of her time in preparing reports based on other
comptometer operator's work. She determines the order in which
work is to be processed. She may recommend the removal of in-
,competent employees from her department and on at least one occa-
sion has made such a recommendation, which was followed. We
,exclude her as a supervisor.5 We also exclude as supervisors the store-
keeper and the truck dispatcher, both of whom have authority to hire
and discharge employees, and the draftsman-estimator, who also has
such authority during the 15 percent of his worktime that he uses in
substitution for departmental foremen.' The head stock clerk in the
curing department gathers information from commercial departments,
prepares shipment data, and handles interdepartmental product trans-
fers. He appears to exercise none of the statutory powers of a super-
visor. His power of direction is limited to instructing the scaling
department foreman as to the daily needs of the curing department
2Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 126 NLRB 1346
8 Swift & Company, 119 NLRB 1556, at 1572, Ohio Ferro Alloys Corporation, 107
NLRB 504.
Gary Steel Products Corporation, 116 NLRB 1192, at 1194.
5 Swift & Company , supra, at 1570
6 Swift & Company, supra , at 1571, 1572
SWIFT & COMPANY 1393
for meat cuts, which instructions are relayed to the cutting floor
employees. He has no direct contact with those employees. Accord-
ingly, we find that his power of direction is routine and indirect and
that he is not engaged in responsible direction of employees, within the
meaning of the Act.' We find that he is not a supervisor. We like-
wise find that the hide-cellar clerk, who during the past 2 years has
spent only 2 weeks as a substitute supervisor, is not a supervisor.'
The Employer contends that nearly all of the approximately 58
employees herein sought are managerial or confidential employees.
We do not agree. These employees are not engaged in the formulation,
determination, and effectuation of management policy in the field of
labor relations or in any other area, nor do they assist in such matters.'
The record shows in detail, and we find that, the functions and duties
of these employees are virtually identical with clerical employees in-
volved in an earlier Swift c i Company case.10 In that case the Board
rejected the Employer's contention that the employees were man-
agerial and confidential employees. The fact that some of the em-
ployees in the instant case may be entrusted with business informa-
tion to be withheld from the Employer's competitors, or that their
work involves cost determinations which may affect employees' pay
scales, does not render them managerial or confidential employees, as
such work is performed by them pursuant to established company
policies and entails a minimum of discretion."
The garage stenographer does substitute, for about 10 percent of her
time, for the confidential secretary to the plant superintendent. How-
ever, the garage stenographer spends only a fraction of that time in
work which might be considered confidential. We find she is not a
confidential employee.12
(b) Alleged nonemployees: The Employer contends that the per-
sonnel of Arrow S Credit Union, whom the Petitioner would include,
are not employees of the Employer. Arrow S is separately chartered
by the State of Illinois and is subject to the State banking laws. Its
stock is owned by its members, and it is managed by directors elected
by such members and by officers appointed by the directors. Officers
and supervisors of Arrow S alone may hire and direct employees.i3
7 San Hanuel Copper Corporation, 120 NLRB 174
8 Swift & Company, supra, at 1507
9 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations , 120 NLRB
969, The B F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722, at 724.
10 Swift & Company, supra
"Swift & Company, supra, at 1569; Peninsular Metal Products Corpoi atoon, 116 NLRB
452, at 453, Farrell-Cheek Steel Company, 88 NLRB 303, at 304
12 The Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company, 119 NLRB 1302, at 1304, footnote 4
"'Although the hirings are through the Employer's employment office. they are pur-
suant to authorizations by the Arrow S board of directors , and the selection of individual
employees is generally that of Arrow S. The Employer pays the salaries of Arrow S em-
ployees to preserve their eligibility for the Employer 's pension plan ; Arrow S, however,
reimburses the Employer for the salaries so paid.
586439-61-vol. 129-8 9
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly , we find that Arrow S Credit Union is a separate em-
ployer for jurisdictional and unit purposes and that the employees it
hires are its employees alone.14
(c) Alleged employees with dissimilar interests : We need not de-
termine whether or not the chairman, analysis and suggestion com-
mittee, and the three supervisory quality control analysts are mana-
gerial , as the Employer further contends , as we in any event exclude
them in view of their diverse interests . The former analyzes em-
ployees' suggestions as to improvements in company operations and
reports them , with recommendations for suggestion awards, to the
analysis and suggestion committee, which in turn forwards them to
the Employer 's management . The latter prepare surveys of produc-
tion processes and product quality, by means of samplings through-
out the plant ; the surveys are pursuant to requests by department
managers or the Employer 's main Chicago headquarters . Both the
chairman, analysis and suggestion committee , and the supervisory
quality control analysts appear to work in close association with
management and supervisors , and it does not affirmatively appear
that they have significant work contacts with the other employees
herein sought.15
The remaining employees herein sought, and listed in the categories
set forth in Appendix A, are engaged in various phases of plant
clerical work, including recording and analysis of time and produc-
tion data, operation of comptometers , calculation of labor expenses,
stenographic and filing work , recording of prices and freight charges,
dispatching , storekeeping , bookkeeping , cost figuring , routing, weigh-
ing, and expediting . They have the same duties as employees found
to be plant clerical employees in the earlier Swift ct Company deci-
sion noted above.l5 Accordingly , we find that these employees are
plant clerical employees. As their interests are essentially similar to
those of the production and maintenance employees , currently repre-
sented by the Petitioner , we shall , in accord with customary Board
policy in such cases, establish them in a voting group, to determine
their desires as to inclusion in the production and maintenance unit.'?
In view of the Employer 's objection to the commingling of technical
employees with other employees, we exclude from the voting group
the employees hereinabove found to be technical employees.18
u Food Fair Stores, Inc., 120 NLRB 497, at 498-499.
15 Tell City Furniture Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 284, at 285.
10 Swift R Company, supra, at 1566
17 Pabst Brewing Company, 109 NLRB 371.
m General Electric Company, 120 NLRB 199. We find no merit in Petitioner's conten-
tion that this policy is inapplicable where a residual group is involved. See Westinghouse
Air Biake Company, 119 NLRB 1391, 1392 As the Petitioner lacks a sufficient showing
of interest among the employees herein found to be technical employees, we shall make no
further disposition of these employees at this time.
SWIFT & COMPANY 1395
We shall direct an election in the following voting group : All
plant clerical employees, more specifically set forth in Appendix A
to this Decision, of the Employer at its National City, Illinois, meat
processing plant, excluding the chairman, analysis and suggestion
committee, and supervisory quality control analysts; time-study en-
gineers and all other technical employees, Arrow S Credit Union
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of employees in the foregoing voting group vote for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be
included in the existing unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees presently represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional
Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification
of the results of the election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
Plant Clerical Voting Group
Production standards checkers
Mechanical standards checkers
Comptometer operators
Labor expense analysis clerks
Posting clerk
Stenographer-standards department
Laboratory technicians
Distribution clerk-mechanical department
Stenographer-mechanical department
Bookkeeper-garage
City market router
Clerk-garage
Stenographer-garage
Stenographer-employment office
Assistant head timekeeper
Supply clerk-table-ready meats, brown 'n serve and automatic chubs
Clerk-Sula Godfrey
Cost clerk-canned meats
Cost clerk-table-ready meats, brown'n serve, and automatic chubs
Clerk-beef cutting division
Carcass beef scaler
Carcass beef clerk
Supply clerk for bone-in beef, prime beef, carcass veal and lamb
Warm beef scaler
Department clerk-lard
Hide-cellar clerk
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Night distribution clerk
Clerk-smokehouse
Clerk-sliced bacon department
Hog test clerk
Stock clerk-dairy, poultry and produce department
Stock clerk-frozen for cure, dry salt, beef, and ham tongues
Clerk-loading department
Clerk-dock office
,Stock clerk-freezer department
Scaler-stock office and curing department
Expediter-loading dock
Contracting Plasterers ' Association of Southern California, Inc.
and its Employer Members; and Orange County Lathing and
Plastering Contractors Association , Inc. and its Employer
Members and Arnold Graski and Southern California District
Council of Laborers , International Hod Carriers , Building
and Common Laborers Union of America and its affiliated
Los Angeles Local 300, Pasadena Local 439, Long Beach Local
507, Santa Ana Local 652, Wilmington Local 802, Pomona
Local 806 and El Monte Local 1082, Parties to the Contract
Southern California District Council of Laborers , International
Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers Union of
America, and its affiliated Los Angeles Local 300, Pasadena
Local 439, Long Beach Local 507, Santa Ana Local 652, Wil-
mington Local 802, Pomona Local 806 and El Monte Local
1082 and Arnold Graski and Contracting Plasterers ' Associa-
tion of Southern California , Inc. and its Employer Members;
and Orange County Lathing and Plastering Contractors Asso-
ciation, Inc . and its Employer Members , Parties to the Contract
Contracting Plasterers ' Association of Southern California, Inc.
and its Employer Members and Henry C. Martin
Orange County Lathing and Plastering Contractors Association,
Inc. and Henry C. Martin
Hod Carriers & Common Laborers Union Los Angeles Local 300,
and Sam Baquera and Ignacio Alcala and Martin Brothers,
Party to the Contract
Hod Carriers & Common Laborers Union Pomona Local 806
and Booker T. Cole and Charles R. Lampson , Party to the
Contract
129 NLRB No. 172.